I dont recall him saying "except America" in hios original quote. By "we" did he refer to South Africa or to the world? As far as I know, South Africa is not having major issues with Islamic extremeists.

You say that as if the two issues are mutually exclusive. Removing non-democracies contributes to our own long term security.

All of the polls I have seen from Iraq so far indicate that they want a democracy. Not only a democracy, but as unified Iraq as well.

What evidence leads you to believe that the majority of Iraqis do not want a democracy?

Bullѕhіt, the division has been there a long time. You people were just lying to yourselves.

The division was well camouflaged because it has been so long since we had a President who refused to compromise on his own morals.

They are apparently closer than any of the Democrat candidates.

I agree. Democrat Presidents have less of a moral backbone.

Which is exactly what I said. It wasnt that they LIKED Kerry. It was that they HATED Bush, and Kerry was an acceptable alternative.

The message it is sending me is that more people liked Bush than liked anyone else.

I disagree.

New information like poll numbers you mean?

Not a single person on this forum has ever proved he lied about anything. It is a common myth the liberals like to encourage.

Prove it.

He didnt lie just because you say he did. You are making the accusation. You are expected to provide the proof.

A lie is saying something that you know to be false. Prove that he knew there were no WMDs.

Being wrong is not the same as lying.

There is no confusion here. You are making a claim that you could only know in hindsight. Bush did not have the benefit of your hindsight.

You are basically saying that we should have taken Saddam's word for it that there were no WMDs. We were correct not to take his word for it at the time, no matter what the end result was.

I didnt ignore them, I rejected them. There is a difference.

Bush does not have the power to wage war over Congress' objections, under our system. That is a fact. Bush could not have waged war without their consent.

...and Congress gave their blessing.

Since they gave their blessing, they share in the responsibility.

No, I dont. I do not make biased assumptions and then project them as if they are fact, the way that you do.

Please post your evidence that the US has overruled the will of the IRaqi People during their elections.

Or is this a "fact" that you are pulling out of your aѕs?

Most people dont have foresight. He had to go on what information he had available at the time.

Saddam would not cooperate with inspectors and engaged in numerous suspiscious activities (like burning documents before the inspectors got there). Had Saddam cooperated with inspectors, we would have had no pretext for an invasion.

The UN's word is insufficient.

As far as I know, Bush is not telepathic.

To entrench a Democracy in Saddam's place.

Because it would have left a power vaccum that our enemies could exploit.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Says me.

Explain to me why you believe non-democracies have a right to exist.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

amazing how you twist and spin you definition of the "truth." LOL
so, basically someone else lied to Bush about WMDs and he believed the lie and repeated it as the "truth" as best he knew at the time?

LOL so he didn't lie he was just extremely stupid for believing a liar. LOL
If I remember correctly the information came from a British source so Bush was to stupid to check the credibility of the source before launching a war against another country.
Taken Saddam's word? LOL like it or not Saddam was telling the truth about WMDs LOL goes to show who actually was telling the truth before the war.
Still look bad for BUSH LOL

It's not a question whether non-democracies have a right to exist, but rather a recognition that they do exist and probably in some form always have and always will. So the question that you need to answer is who is going to dismantle them? The U.S.? So far that strategy has been a ghastly failure.

__________________
Links.com - I link therefore I am

It truly amazes me how the Bush administration can almost
completely ignore N. Korea "test firing" nukes at us but people
still think Iraq is all about some shells filled with chemicals.

I knew it so he must have known, he cant be that stupid.

The reason i knew is because the WMD installation were the first target in the golf ware. Don't need military training to know that right? And 10 years of sanctions made it impossible to rebuild it so...

I hear he did not even managed to rebuild the water supply in Iraq, which caused millions of kids to die after being contaminated drinking water. Kids that could have been saved if only they had access to medication denied by the sanctions. I even heard it was the goal of the sanction
so that people would trow out of power Saddam... A very ''evil'' if you ask me.

I wasn't talking about a direct link to al Queda. I was talking about turning the region hostile towards such organizations. Regardless of whether the way we went about it worked is irrelevent to my question. You can disagree with the strategy but that doesn't nullify the war's justifications.

Could someone tell me what these terror groups' goal was before we went into the Middle-East?

Thats all I wanted to know.

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

His tenacity could be just that. Genuine, unwavering, will to do what he thinks is right. Right? Sorry I'm trying my best to be unarguementative; I'm trying to understand. But in the end your evidence is still circumstantial.

If you look back in history, America has never truely had the stomach for war.

In the Revolution, we were divided in to thirds actualy: 1/3 patriot, 1/3 torry, 1/3 "who cares". It took the will of only one third of our population to push us through that war. Most would agree we turned out for the better.

Contrary to popular belief, Abe was not liked for his "stuborness" in the Civil War; we had to be pushed through that one as well.

WW1 we were hellbent on staying neutral. After the Lusitania support still wasn't what I'd call stellar.

WW2, well some could argue that there was a rather "fortunate" series of events that allowed FDR (actually one of the shadiest presidents I think we've ever had) to push a declaration of war through congress. Even after that we grew tired of it rather fast.

Korea was over before the major b****ing could begin.

Vietnam... nuff said.

Actually the Gulf War was the only one that didn't get too much criticism. I think it spoiled us. After that I think people thought that we should be able to be done with any war in just a few months.

It seems (hint word: seems) that without a little nudging or truth slanting, many if not most Americans are ever really supportive of a war.[/b]

I was talking about my country, S-S. We had not problems with Islamitic extremists in our country before the Iraqi war, now we have some litle problems, which we have to keep an eye on.

Most of them mention as reason for their extremiism the 'Wests attack on Islam"

So, here, it does not pre-date 9\11

AH

__________________
“Every morning in Africa, a Gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a Lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest Gazelle or it will starve to death. It doesn't matter whether you are a Lion or a Gazelle... when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.”